If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

And it is rare all the resolutions were very high, for gaming 720p is the common choice now, becasue is twice faster than 1080p, and this 2 resolutions are what matters for gaming with 640x480 and 800x600 for old CRT good monitors.

Rubbish. Take a good look at the settings most real gamers use on Windows. Almost always at 1600 x 900 or native 1080. With ULTRA settings to boot, and all extra features like 16x MSAA and DX11 extras turned ON. And by recently i mean 'within the past 8 months' recent.

Under these settings in Windows a good card can easily fetch above 70--80fps if vsync is disabled on a recently-released, high graphics requirement game. Which is a far cry from what the open Radeon driver can ever hope to achieve.

Originally Posted by mitcoes

And as a post from kwahoo shows 38 fps dx vs 53 fps open gl at 1080p at Serious Sam 3.with catalyst.

And openGL looks TERRIBLE when compared to DX 11. Of course you don't experience lower framerates with shittier graphics quality.

Rubbish. Take a good look at the settings most real gamers use on Windows. Almost always at 1600 x 900 or native 1080. With ULTRA settings to boot, and all extra features like 16x MSAA and DX11 extras turned ON. And by recently i mean 'within the past 8 months' recent.

Under these settings in Windows a good card can easily fetch above 70--80fps if vsync is disabled on a recently-released, high graphics requirement game. Which is a far cry from what the open Radeon driver can ever hope to achieve.

And openGL looks TERRIBLE when compared to DX 11. Of course you don't experience lower framerates with shittier graphics quality.

Are you sure that actual best selled monitors / graphic cards combos run at 1080p well for gaming?

Of course a gamer with a good budget will use a SDD and a Intel i7 with a high end ATi or NVIDIA GPU, but most home computers used for casual gaming go better with 720p and not that good hardware.

And I do like to read game benchmarks for "normal" budget users, more for this new chapter in the future Steam for Linux games, being Ubuntu home machines, normally equiped with old hardware or less powerful hardware performing better than MS WOS for most tasks and perhaps even gaming.

And of course AMD and NVIDIA blobs are a handicap, if they were open source or at least modular and most parts open source and some - patented - closed, the gaming experience with better drivers for Linux will improve.

Last but not least, in FPS games, at least in old Q3 times, pros used to put minimal settings to better aiming and liked to use 120 Hz and limit to 120 fps with 800x600 and even lower resolutions with that time high end machines. I remember some pro cfgs - I never liked to play that way - where Quake3 appears almost without any decoration.

PS: And we will have to add to this benchmarks soon ARM SoCs, Samsung has an intereesting new cheap ARM chromebook, Ubuntu TV for ARM TVs will be soon out there, and OUYA too, and this vs MS WOS 8 RT benchmarks will not be able to be done even at 1080p for a good gaming experience.

And openGL looks TERRIBLE when compared to DX 11. Of course you don't experience lower framerates with shittier graphics quality.

This is simply wrong. There's no outstanding difference between modern OpenGL and DirectX APIs... both support almost identical control over the hardware (in some cases, OpenGL actually provides more, due to it's extenability) and produce equally compelling results at similar frame-rates.

do what I did: get a laptop with intel graphics = not giving a shit about amd nightmarish linux support.

You are clearly not a visionary. In order for the Linux desktop to grow in support (which makes both casual and professional's lives easier) the desktop needs to be in a position for modern gaming. The good news is it's getting there.

Rubbish. Take a good look at the settings most real gamers use on Windows. Almost always at 1600 x 900 or native 1080. With ULTRA settings to boot, and all extra features like 16x MSAA and DX11 extras turned ON. And by recently i mean 'within the past 8 months' recent.

Not true. A pro-gamer tries to get the game as smooth as possible, higher settings reduce the smoothness. Sometimes they see even more (visibly) by turning off extras (shadows, for example).
[quote]Under these settings in Windows a good card can easily fetch above 70--80fps if vsync is disabled on a recently-released, high graphics requirement game. Which is a far cry from what the open Radeon driver can ever hope to achieve.
Define "good card" and "recently-released, high graphics requirement game" or all you told is useless.

And openGL looks TERRIBLE when compared to DX 11. Of course you don't experience lower framerates with shittier graphics quality.

I must be blind. Please tell me where exactly you see that terrible differences:
vs.